New study finds 60% of medical cannabis edibles overstate THC levels

If you want to know why its illegal just watch Reefer Madness! It was used primarily a means to arrest black musicians. While the "documentary" is hilariously camp today it was quite an effective propaganda piece at the time. Harry Anslinger was the "J Edgar Hoover" of the DEA.

DC is likewise, thanks to some dick in the House of Representatives who got a rider in our appropriations bill preventing the city from spending any money to come up with a regulatory system. So you can possess it, and grow some plants, but you can't buy it anywhere.

Since there is no interstate commerce in marijuana and no chance that a large enough cannabis grow can be set up within the district given property values and school density, this is not really going to change until Federal regulation changes, even if there were a reasonable regulatory system.

Colorado, Delaware, Washington (state), and Washington, DC, have all legalized the possession and recreational use of the drug.

And Oregon. Though the law doesn't take effect until July 1st.

And Alaska, though I doubt that we see any products up here for at least another year. We're still setting up the regulatory stuff.

So is Oregon. Next week you can grow/possess but not buy/sell.

DC is likewise, thanks to some dick in the House of Representatives who got a rider in our appropriations bill preventing the city from spending any money to come up with a regulatory system. So you can possess it, and grow some plants, but you can't buy it anywhere.

The thought occurs to me that someone like Micheal Moore could easily afford to donate the funds to the city, specifically to proceed with.

But yeah we know that isn't going to happen. Uber wealthy liberals are no better then the rest and every bit as greedy and self serving.

a shame really. I'd love to see that kind of political activism sprout up and thwart effects like Mr. Dick's.

Edit:add - Mind you I think Moore is a complete dick, but if he wants to go to war with 'Mr. Dick' ... as they say the enemy of your enemy is your friend. At least for the time being.

I'm not sure how much more potent you would want it. I was in Colorado and someone gave me one of those tiny square little pieces of paper candy and that was super strong, but had no flavor. I thought the effects would last maybe an hour, but it took me about 8 hours before I started feeling normal. It certainly made colors pop and everything just felt alive, but it was a bit much for me. Not my thing and I'm not sure how people do that daily and function.

In my experience, too many people have too little patience and eat too much brownie. The results are a disastrously bad trip. Weak brownies might not be a bad thing. Strong brownies are a recipe for trouble.

This article contains a factual error. There may be such a thing as not enough weed, but there's no such thing as too much brownie.

This. So much this. I have never had a brownie and thought "this brownie has too much brownie in it". I have had a brownie and thought "I do not feel high, maybe it didn't have enough weed in it"...but to be fair to the brownies, I was experimenting with them to see if they helped with the simulator sickness in the Oculus, and they did do that. (Also the brownies weren't that good...next time I'll try my hand at making my own, brownies are one of the handful of things I can actually make.)

If you want to know why its illegal just watch Reefer Madness! It was used primarily a means to arrest black musicians. While the "documentary" is hilariously camp today it was quite an effective propaganda piece at the time. Harry Anslinger was the "J Edgar Hoover" of the DEA.

This article contains a factual error. There may be such a thing as not enough weed, but there's no such thing as too much brownie.

Glad I read the comments because I'd hate to have to admit to being ninja'd by that much. +1 for stating the very obvious. Hey, I have a new, and completely legal, recipie for brownies. Time to try it out.

And Alaska, though I doubt that we see any products up here for at least another year. We're still setting up the regulatory stuff.

So is Oregon. Next week you can grow/possess but not buy/sell.

DC is likewise, thanks to some dick in the House of Representatives who got a rider in our appropriations bill preventing the city from spending any money to come up with a regulatory system. So you can possess it, and grow some plants, but you can't buy it anywhere.

Well he could've been dickier I guess, but it is still a dick move.[/quote]How ironic. Dickweed in Washington. ....yea, I'll leave again.

Considering weed is just a drug that we people pretend medical value without actual clinical trials to back up all the various claims, does it really matter how much THC is in it anything as long as people get high? Ultimately the point of all the "medical" movements are to legalize recreational use.

Those are studies, how many are clinical trials like a real medical drug?

At least one*, just on the first friggin' page. Frankly, I don't care if folks hold contrary opinions, but when you're just spouting garbage without anything to back it up, let alone even looking at the sources provided to demonstrate your error, you sound more like a troll than anything else. I replied more so folks don't miss the irony than for any other reason.

*"Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC: CBD extract and THC extract in patients …" is on the very first [page of that search, fourth from the top. Sure sounds like a clinical trial to me!

Do you think if a major pharmaceutical company were to make a drug that it could be brought to market in the same way that weed is? There are probably uses for the stuff in weed (Marinol ) but there are also claims made about what the drug can do that have no basis in reality but it can still be marketed as curing almost anything. This is not an FDA approved drug, I am not aware of other non FDA approved drugs that can be prescribed in this manner so lets not pretend it is anything else.educate yourself:http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHea ... 68.htm#use

Considering weed is just a drug that we people pretend medical value without actual clinical trials to back up all the various claims, does it really matter how much THC is in it anything as long as people get high? Ultimately the point of all the "medical" movements are to legalize recreational use.

Those are studies, how many are clinical trials like a real medical drug?

At least one*, just on the first friggin' page. Frankly, I don't care if folks hold contrary opinions, but when you're just spouting garbage without anything to back it up, let alone even looking at the sources provided to demonstrate your error, you sound more like a troll than anything else. I replied more so folks don't miss the irony than for any other reason.

*"Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC: CBD extract and THC extract in patients …" is on the very first [page of that search, fourth from the top. Sure sounds like a clinical trial to me!

Do you think if a major pharmaceutical company were to make a drug that it could be brought to market in the same way that weed is? There are probably uses for the stuff in weed (Marinol ) but there are also claims made about what the drug can do that have no basis in reality but it can still be marketed as curing almost anything. This is not an FDA approved drug, I am not aware of other non FDA approved drugs that can be prescribed in this manner so lets not pretend it is anything else.educate yourself:http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHea ... 68.htm#use

Hi.

Do you know what a Schedule I narcotic is? If not, that means it's listed (in the US) as having no medical uses and is banned from being tested on or researched.

Considering weed is just a drug that we people pretend medical value without actual clinical trials to back up all the various claims, does it really matter how much THC is in it anything as long as people get high? Ultimately the point of all the "medical" movements are to legalize recreational use.

Those are studies, how many are clinical trials like a real medical drug?

At least one*, just on the first friggin' page. Frankly, I don't care if folks hold contrary opinions, but when you're just spouting garbage without anything to back it up, let alone even looking at the sources provided to demonstrate your error, you sound more like a troll than anything else. I replied more so folks don't miss the irony than for any other reason.

*"Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC: CBD extract and THC extract in patients …" is on the very first [page of that search, fourth from the top. Sure sounds like a clinical trial to me!

Do you think if a major pharmaceutical company were to make a drug that it could be brought to market in the same way that weed is? There are probably uses for the stuff in weed (Marinol ) but there are also claims made about what the drug can do that have no basis in reality but it can still be marketed as curing almost anything. This is not an FDA approved drug, I am not aware of other non FDA approved drugs that can be prescribed in this manner so lets not pretend it is anything else.educate yourself:http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHea ... 68.htm#use

Hi.

Do you know what a Schedule I narcotic is? If not, that means it's listed (in the US) as having no medical uses and is banned from being tested on or researched.

since you are too lazy to click on the link I posted, the facts disagree with you.

"5. Does the FDA object to the clinical investigation of marijuana for medical use?A. No. The FDA believes that scientifically valid research conducted under an IND application is the best way to determine what patients could benefit from the use of drugs derived from marijuana. The FDA supports the conduct of that research by:

Providing information on the process needed to conduct clinical research using marijuana.Providing information on the specific requirements needed to develop a drug that is derived from a plant such as marijuana. In June 2004, the FDA finalized its Guidance for Industry: Botanical Drug Products, which provides sponsors with guidance on submitting IND applications for botanical drug products.Providing specific support for investigators interested in conducting clinical research using marijuana and its constituents as a part of the IND process through meetings and regular interactions throughout the drug development process.Providing general support to investigators to help them understand and follow the procedures to conduct clinical research through the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s Small Business and Industry Assistance group.6. What kind of research is the FDA reviewing when it comes to the efficacy of marijuana?A. The FDA reviews applications to market drug products to determine whether those drug products are safe and effective for their intended indications. The FDA reviews scientific investigations, including adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, as part of the FDA’s drug approval process.

The FDA relies on applicants and scientific investigators to conduct research. Our role, as outlined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, is to review data submitted to the FDA in a marketing application to determine whether a proposed drug product meets the statutory standards for approval. Additional information concerning research on the medical use of marijuana is available from the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and NIDA."

Oh well, it's not like those using it are actually using it medically or that it has the medical uses they claim it does.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. In that case, it's still a thing that matters regardless. I certainly appreciate the fact that I can check the alcohol content of any beer I buy. It's an issue of truth in advertising, public safety, and consumer empowerment. If a person knows too much THC puts them where they do not want to be very quickly, they should be able to buy the correct amount for them.

I agree. If people wish to use it "medically" it should be treated the exact same as real medications.

It was and is. It does exist in most places where it is not considered allowed for "medically" according to the modern definition. The point is only that it requires a prescription and you get it in pill form, because smoking it is an unnecessary health risk, but that isn't what people want. Also there are other pills that do the same better so it is only prescribed if you are allergic to the the more effective drugs.

since you are too lazy to click on the link I posted, the facts disagree with you.

"5. Does the FDA object to the clinical investigation of marijuana for medical use?A. No. The FDA believes that scientifically valid research conducted under an IND application is the best way to determine what patients could benefit from the use of drugs derived from marijuana. The FDA supports the conduct of that research by:

Providing information on the process needed to conduct clinical research using marijuana.Providing information on the specific requirements needed to develop a drug that is derived from a plant such as marijuana. In June 2004, the FDA finalized its Guidance for Industry: Botanical Drug Products, which provides sponsors with guidance on submitting IND applications for botanical drug products.Providing specific support for investigators interested in conducting clinical research using marijuana and its constituents as a part of the IND process through meetings and regular interactions throughout the drug development process.Providing general support to investigators to help them understand and follow the procedures to conduct clinical research through the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s Small Business and Industry Assistance group.6. What kind of research is the FDA reviewing when it comes to the efficacy of marijuana?A. The FDA reviews applications to market drug products to determine whether those drug products are safe and effective for their intended indications. The FDA reviews scientific investigations, including adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, as part of the FDA’s drug approval process.

The FDA relies on applicants and scientific investigators to conduct research. Our role, as outlined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, is to review data submitted to the FDA in a marketing application to determine whether a proposed drug product meets the statutory standards for approval. Additional information concerning research on the medical use of marijuana is available from the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and NIDA."

That's nice of them. And just how does the DEA feel about their wishes and desires?

In my experience, too many people have too little patience and eat too much brownie. The results are a disastrously bad trip. Weak brownies might not be a bad thing. Strong brownies are a recipe for trouble.

Unless people eat weak brownies, assume that the dosing is accurate, "I can handle 200mg" and then eat a stronger brownie based on that misinformation.

since you are too lazy to click on the link I posted, the facts disagree with you.

"5. Does the FDA object to the clinical investigation of marijuana for medical use?A. No. The FDA believes that scientifically valid research conducted under an IND application is the best way to determine what patients could benefit from the use of drugs derived from marijuana. The FDA supports the conduct of that research by:

Providing information on the process needed to conduct clinical research using marijuana.Providing information on the specific requirements needed to develop a drug that is derived from a plant such as marijuana. In June 2004, the FDA finalized its Guidance for Industry: Botanical Drug Products, which provides sponsors with guidance on submitting IND applications for botanical drug products.Providing specific support for investigators interested in conducting clinical research using marijuana and its constituents as a part of the IND process through meetings and regular interactions throughout the drug development process.Providing general support to investigators to help them understand and follow the procedures to conduct clinical research through the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s Small Business and Industry Assistance group.6. What kind of research is the FDA reviewing when it comes to the efficacy of marijuana?A. The FDA reviews applications to market drug products to determine whether those drug products are safe and effective for their intended indications. The FDA reviews scientific investigations, including adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, as part of the FDA’s drug approval process.

The FDA relies on applicants and scientific investigators to conduct research. Our role, as outlined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, is to review data submitted to the FDA in a marketing application to determine whether a proposed drug product meets the statutory standards for approval. Additional information concerning research on the medical use of marijuana is available from the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and NIDA."

That's nice of them. And just how does the DEA feel about their wishes and desires?

In my experience, too many people have too little patience and eat too much brownie. The results are a disastrously bad trip. Weak brownies might not be a bad thing. Strong brownies are a recipe for trouble.

Unless people eat weak brownies, assume that the dosing is accurate, "I can handle 200mg" and then eat a stronger brownie based on that misinformation.

Which is why you should smoke it. On a vaporizer if tobacco is a problem.

This is actually exactly my experience with edibles. I have eaten over 20 edibles in my time on Earth, and only recently has one had any real effect, and that was only because I know the guy who makes the stuff and when I told him edibles are always low-dosed he made me some crazy stuff.

So if Marijuana is legal in a particular state can you still get busted for possesion because it is still illegal under a federal law?

You can technically get busted by the feds if you're breaking a federal law. Though, the Obama Administration has said it will respect the laws of states who have legalized it, medicinal or otherwise. However, there were still some DEA raids on dispensaries in various states where it's legal, so take that with a grain of salt.

And, yes, to address your edit, the Colorado Supreme Court (I believe) ruled that it is 100% legal to fire someone who has a prescription for medical marijuana and then fails a drug test. Only state laws that have language protecting medical users will prevent this. For example, NY's medical marijuana law (one of the most restrictive in the country) says something to the effect of, "a patient who is prescribed medical marijuana is considered disabled under the NYS Human Rights Law." Which means, it'd be a violation of the NYS Human Rights Law to fire someone for the sole reason that they smoke (so long as they have a valid script). Also, the law contains a carve out that says that if you're subject to federal regulations, like Dept. of Transportation, that requires drug tests, the NYS law won't protect you.

So if Marijuana is legal in a particular state can you still get busted for possesion because it is still illegal under a federal law?

I also read somewhere that you can be denied employment if you test positive for marijuana because it is still illegal under federal law.

That's partially due to common drug testing (urine analysis) targeting marijuana rather unfairly. No other drug is/can be tested to see if you've used over the past couple weeks short of expensive hair testing. If drug testing switched to a mouth swab, that would put alcohol and drugs on equal footing instead of biasing against marijuana with urine analysis and give a more accurate indication of being impaired.

Just like you can get fired (or denied employment) for showing up drunk, I expect people to get fired for showing up high. However, people can't/shouldn't get fired because they got drunk/stoned after work or on the weekend (assuming they don't show up hungover to the point of dysfunction in the case of alcohol or still drunk/high).

Considering weed is just a drug that we people pretend medical value without actual clinical trials to back up all the various claims, does it really matter how much THC is in it anything as long as people get high? Ultimately the point of all the "medical" movements are to legalize recreational use.

Those are studies, how many are clinical trials like a real medical drug?

At least one*, just on the first friggin' page. Frankly, I don't care if folks hold contrary opinions, but when you're just spouting garbage without anything to back it up, let alone even looking at the sources provided to demonstrate your error, you sound more like a troll than anything else. I replied more so folks don't miss the irony than for any other reason.

*"Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC: CBD extract and THC extract in patients …" is on the very first [page of that search, fourth from the top. Sure sounds like a clinical trial to me!

Do you think if a major pharmaceutical company were to make a drug that it could be brought to market in the same way that weed is? There are probably uses for the stuff in weed (Marinol ) but there are also claims made about what the drug can do that have no basis in reality but it can still be marketed as curing almost anything. This is not an FDA approved drug, I am not aware of other non FDA approved drugs that can be prescribed in this manner so lets not pretend it is anything else.educate yourself:http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHea ... 68.htm#use

You're conflating FDA approval with clinical trials.

Your points:

Quote:

weed is just a drug that we people pretend medical value without actual clinical trials

You've stated that FDA has not approved it, but you haven't shown that the clinical trials provided above are invalid in any way.

Quote:

Do you think if a major pharmaceutical company were to make a drug that it could be brought to market in the same way that weed is?

What does this have to do with the original point? Anyways, this is a ridiculous argument. Marijuana is a plant that pre-dates big pharma, it's not a man-made drug, how you're comparing they exist in society is fundamentally flawed.

Quote:

here are probably uses for the stuff in weed (Marinol ) but there are also claims made about what the drug can do that have no basis in reality but it can still be marketed as curing almost anything.

Marinol is an isomer and regardless it's irrelevant to the argument of Marijuana's effectiveness.

Quote:

This is not an FDA approved drug, I am not aware of other non FDA approved drugs that can be prescribed in this manner so lets not pretend it is anything else.

Strawman? No one here is saying that it's an FDA approved drug, and you have yet to establish why this even matters. The FDA is not infallible, it is not immune to the government's stance on Marijuana (mainly that it's amongst "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence" [DEA Schedule I description]). It's not FDA approved, what of it?

So if Marijuana is legal in a particular state can you still get busted for possesion because it is still illegal under a federal law?

I also read somewhere that you can be denied employment if you test positive for marijuana because it is still illegal under federal law.

That's partially due to common drug testing (urine analysis) targeting marijuana rather unfairly. No other drug is/can be tested to see if you've used over the past couple weeks short of expensive hair testing. If drug testing switched to a mouth swab, that would put alcohol and drugs on equal footing instead of biasing against marijuana with urine analysis and give a more accurate indication of being impaired.

Just like you can get fired (or denied employment) for showing up drunk, I expect people to get fired for showing up high. However, people can't/shouldn't get fired because they got drunk/stoned after work or on the weekend (assuming they don't show up hungover to the point of dysfunction in the case of alcohol or still drunk/high).

I was just talking with my friend who's an Assistant District Attorney about the mouth swabs, and he mentioned that. I had to look it up. Why the hell aren't we mandating that it's the only way drug tests can be conducted? I've always thought it was monumentally stupid to use hair or urine because it only busts pot smokers. For cocaine, heroin, alcohol, and numerous other drugs, 48 hours maximum, and you're clean.

I think hair and urine tests should be outlawed for employment purposes and only use mouth swabs. That way, you can only judge the person based on their actions at work and on the merits, not whether they smoked pot 5 weeks ago.

If you want to know why its illegal just watch Reefer Madness! It was used primarily a means to arrest black musicians. While the "documentary" is hilariously camp today it was quite an effective propaganda piece at the time. Harry Anslinger was the "J Edgar Hoover" of the DEA.

If you want to know why its illegal just watch Reefer Madness! It was used primarily a means to arrest black musicians. While the "documentary" is hilariously camp today it was quite an effective propaganda piece at the time. Harry Anslinger was the "J Edgar Hoover" of the DEA.

Same reason switchblades are illegal.

Black jazz musicians popularized switchblades? /s

Switchblades are illegal?

In a lot of places, yeah. And, random fact, many of those places also have exemptions if you only have one hand.

this is very different from smoking weed or feeding it to your pet as an herbal remedy.

Why should I have to take a pill from Roche that is less effective than the plant it is derived from which I can simply grow myself?

Because capitalism. /s

Totally agree with you.

Pretty poorly done capitalism, since they could grow it themselves and sell it just as easily (see the fruit and vegetable markets, a lot of those can be grown at home pretty easily). Probably lower costs to do that too, since the R&D is pretty minimal. But then they can't get their patents.

this is very different from smoking weed or feeding it to your pet as an herbal remedy.

Why should I have to take a pill from Roche that is less effective than the plant it is derived from which I can simply grow myself?

Because capitalism. /s

Totally agree with you.

Pretty poorly done capitalism, since they could grow it themselves and sell it just as easily (see the fruit and vegetable markets, a lot of those can be grown at home pretty easily). Probably lower costs to do that too, since the R&D is pretty minimal. But then they can't get their patents.

Oh well, it's not like those using it are actually using it medically or that it has the medical uses they claim it does.

Hi. Medical cannabis card holder. Here's why I am one:

PTSD: Keeps me from killing you. Seriously. It does that. I won't go into reasons why, but despite your comments in this thread, I'll assume you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

Stress/anxiety: Keeps me from having panic attacks which can be incredibly dangerous depending on what I'm doing at the time.

Depression: Pretty fucking self-explanatory if you've ever tried it. Again, based on your comments I'll assume that's a "no" so take it from me: Pot makes you feel good.

Stay in whatever hole you live in and please don't ever vote.

Well have you tried all the other drugs before you settled on the one that although may work, has some serious side effects? You know being high to the point you can't operate a car, being high to the point where you can't get meaningful work done. There's a reason most doctors don't go the cannabis route immediately. Unfortunately the system is broken so that some doctor's make money because they're known to be very lenient in writing prescriptions, not because they're miracle workers who've found a miracle drug.

Has anyone ever challenged the federal governments right to make marijuana illegal? I thought that the 10th amendment left rights to the states for things not involving interstate commerce.

Many times, and the supreme court has ruled time and time again that Marijuana affects interstate commerce even if it is grown and consumed by one individual in one state, because, and I'm not joking here, the growing of the plant affects the illicit interstate commerce in the drug!

A couple of elderly women grew and consumed their own marijuana, in accordance with state law. Since they did not engage in *any* commerce, their case showed how silly the use of the Commerce clause has become. Gonzales argued (successfully) that because they *weren't buying*, that act affected the interstate market for marijuana.

Deal with that for a minute. No one laughed him out of the courtroom. He actually *won* with that argument.

The truly sad thing is that the court's liberal wing voted in favor of Gonzales. This was necessary to maintain consistency with post New Deal expansion of federal power, most of which relies on an expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause. But it still sickens me.

The courts conservatives all voted for Raich, except for Scalia. Scalia *hates* abuse of the commerce clause, but apparently hates hippies more, so he filed a separate concurrence. He found the oldest post-Stitch decision that could justify his prejudice (since nothing pre-Stitch could), then ran with it. This was even more sickening than the liberals.

O'Connor wrote the dissent, joined by Thomas and Rehnquist. This case really opened my eyes to how the modern Left in America is in many instances even more distasteful than the Right. As an anarcho-capitalist, I'm actually considering voting in the Republican primary to try to get Rand Paul the nomination...

Oh well, it's not like those using it are actually using it medically or that it has the medical uses they claim it does.

Hi. Medical cannabis card holder. Here's why I am one:

PTSD: Keeps me from killing you. Seriously. It does that. I won't go into reasons why, but despite your comments in this thread, I'll assume you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

Stress/anxiety: Keeps me from having panic attacks which can be incredibly dangerous depending on what I'm doing at the time.

Depression: Pretty fucking self-explanatory if you've ever tried it. Again, based on your comments I'll assume that's a "no" so take it from me: Pot makes you feel good.

Stay in whatever hole you live in and please don't ever vote.

Well have you tried all the other drugs before you settled on the one that although may work, has some serious side effects? You know being high to the point you can't operate a car, being high to the point where you can't get meaningful work done. There's a reason most doctors don't go the cannabis route immediately. Unfortunately the system is broken so that some doctor's make money because they're known to be very lenient in writing prescriptions, not because they're miracle workers who've found a miracle drug.

You don't necessarily have to take enough to get high to get the positive effects though. Like I said in my earlier comment, I was able to suppress the nausea of simulator sickness without consuming enough to get high (though, in my case, purely recreational and experimental, so I was a little disappointed I didn't).

Oh well, it's not like those using it are actually using it medically or that it has the medical uses they claim it does.

Hi. Medical cannabis card holder. Here's why I am one:

PTSD: Keeps me from killing you. Seriously. It does that. I won't go into reasons why, but despite your comments in this thread, I'll assume you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

Stress/anxiety: Keeps me from having panic attacks which can be incredibly dangerous depending on what I'm doing at the time.

Depression: Pretty fucking self-explanatory if you've ever tried it. Again, based on your comments I'll assume that's a "no" so take it from me: Pot makes you feel good.

Stay in whatever hole you live in and please don't ever vote.

Well have you tried all the other drugs before you settled on the one that although may work, has some serious side effects? You know being high to the point you can't operate a car, being high to the point where you can't get meaningful work done. There's a reason most doctors don't go the cannabis route immediately. Unfortunately the system is broken so that some doctor's make money because they're known to be very lenient in writing prescriptions, not because they're miracle workers who've found a miracle drug.

I have tried a gamut of anti-depressants. They made me feel hollow. Or angry. Or nothing. Fussing with your neurotransmitters and hormones is a terrible, dangerous way to go about "healing" yourself.

If you're smoking enough pot to negatively affect your work or driving, you're doing it wrong. Like way wrong.

Oh well, it's not like those using it are actually using it medically or that it has the medical uses they claim it does.

Hi. Medical cannabis card holder. Here's why I am one:

PTSD: Keeps me from killing you. Seriously. It does that. I won't go into reasons why, but despite your comments in this thread, I'll assume you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

Stress/anxiety: Keeps me from having panic attacks which can be incredibly dangerous depending on what I'm doing at the time.

Depression: Pretty fucking self-explanatory if you've ever tried it. Again, based on your comments I'll assume that's a "no" so take it from me: Pot makes you feel good.

Stay in whatever hole you live in and please don't ever vote.

Well have you tried all the other drugs before you settled on the one that although may work, has some serious side effects? You know being high to the point you can't operate a car, being high to the point where you can't get meaningful work done. There's a reason most doctors don't go the cannabis route immediately. Unfortunately the system is broken so that some doctor's make money because they're known to be very lenient in writing prescriptions, not because they're miracle workers who've found a miracle drug.

I have tried a gamut of anti-depressants. They made me feel hollow. Or angry. Or nothing. Fussing with your neurotransmitters and hormones is a terrible, dangerous way to go about "healing" yourself.

If you're smoking enough pot to negatively affect your work or driving, you're doing it wrong. Like way wrong.

How do you know how much is enough, when one of the side effects of administrating THC is it actually builds a tolerance pretty quickly. What do you do take blood samples to find a efficient dosage?